×

Alleged Money Laundering: Saraki’s Trial Continues

The trial of Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki over alleged false declaration of assets at the CCT continued on Wednesday with the cross examination of … Continue reading Alleged Money Laundering: Saraki’s Trial Continues


Saraki, Senate Condemn SGF's Reaction To Allegations

Bukola-SarakiThe trial of Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki over alleged false declaration of assets at the CCT continued on Wednesday with the cross examination of prosecution witness, Mr Michael Wetkas, by the defence.

The witness was asked if from his investigation and findings he was able to establish that number 15A and B MacDonald Street, Ikoyi are the same as number 15 and house 15 flat 1 to 4 and he said yes.

He was then told to read the letter by the second bidder on the property on 15 MacDonald Street, Ikoyi.

According to the letter, the company pointed out to the Minister of Works and Housing and the Committee that besides the land on ground being different front the measurement on paper, the numbering of the properties were ambiguous.

According to the letter, the properties were labelled number 15A and B MacDonald Street, Ikoyi-Lagos, behind another number 15 and as such there would be need to make clarifications.

When asked if they, as investigators, invited Energy Marine Limited, the said second bidder to explain the letter, he said no.

When also asked if he has any information as to whether the defendant has any relationship with Every Marine Limited, he said again no.

However, when asked if he had seen the letter before now, he answered in the affirmative.

He was also asked if based on the letters he went to inspect the discrepancies and he (witness) said he did not, but that other members of the team visited Macdonald Street and reported back to him.

When asked if they filed a report, he said it was verbal and that when the other persons, who are listed as witnesses in the case take a stand, they will be in a better position to say so.

He was then handed the joint report of the investigative team dated July 28, 2006.

In the joint report, the witness read that there were two properties, adding that while one was painted, the other lacked character.

The report as read by the witness also said that the properties were both residential.